Crime Blog

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion that bolstered earlier decisions that said that jury selection should be done in public. Coincidentally, the decision came down as U.S. District Judge Barbara Lynn in Dallas was conducting jury selection behind closed doors in the case of Jibreel Rashad, accused of helping former Mayor Pro Tem Don Hill extort money from a developer as part of the Dallas City Hall corruption investigation.

By the time the court and lawyers found out about the opinion Tuesday afternoon, a jury and alternates had already been sworn. But this morning, Vic Sasso, Rashad’s attorney, made a motion for a mistrial based on the fact that Lynn had sealed jury selection. The judge put opening statements on hold, told jurors there was going to be a delay and gave prosecutors an hour or so to do some on-the-fly legal research to counter Sasso’s motion.

When Lynn and the lawyers re-emerged this morning, Lynn heard from prosecutor Chad Meacham.

He told Lynn that she had made reasonable accommodations to some of Rashad’s family members who wanted to attend jury selection yesterday. “If Mr. Rashad were convicted, it would go up to the Fifth Circuit for an error review, and we would have a good chance of success.”

But Lynn wasn’t convinced. “The court does not believe it is required to grant the motion for mistrial, but out of an abundance of caution, I do,” Lynn said.

The judge then called in the jury and broke the news. “This is the first time I’ve had to do this in 10 years on the bench. We are going to start again. I’m excusing all of you. It had nothing to do with anything you have done. We appreciate your time and attention, and you would have given a fair trial to the government and the defense, but we are going to select a new jury.”

She said that she’s instructed the lawyers not to talk to them, so if they want to know what happened, they’d probably have to “read about it in the newspaper.”

She ordered that a pool of 200 new potential jurors be called in to restart jury selection on Monday. To protect jurors’ identities now that the process will be open to the public, the judge said that no names will be used during jury selection, nor will potential jurors’ employers be identified. “The jurors are entited to privacy, for their own safety and security,” she said.
Lynn’s concern about jurors’ identities getting out stems no doubt from her experiences in the main City Hall corruption case last year.

First, allegations of jury misconduct arose after the Dallas Observer published an interview with a juror who seemed to suggest that the panel may have discussed the case before deliberations had begun. Lynn determined that that did not happen, but only after calling the juror back to the courthouse after the trial and questioning her under oath. Then, last week, the judge called defendant D’Angelo Lee back to court to confront him with accusations by a juror, who accused Lee of confronting her at a movie theater, then following her in a vehicle in an attempt to talk about the case. The judge demanded that Lee tell her if he had somehow found out the juror’s home address, and asked him if he had looked up any of the other jurors’ information from his trial. Lee said no and denied any wrongdoing. Lynn said that she is contemplating calling a hearing on the matter.

Still, unless there is an overriding reason to do otherwise, yesterday’s Supreme Court decision says that judges must let the public in to see jury selections.

Here’s a good discussion of the opinion, which I’ve uploaded below. Basically, the justices found that a Georgia judge erred by excluding a drug defendant’s uncle from jury selection because there was not enough room in the courtroom.

The justices found that the defendant’s right to a public trial requires judges to seek alternatives to sealing a courtroom, which can be done only in extreme circumstances, such as when sensitive information might be discussed. Moreover, judges should abide by this even when the issue is not pressed by either side, the justices found.

“The conclusion that trial courts are required to consider alternatives to closure even when they are not offered by the parties is clear not only from this Court’s precedents but also from the premise that ‘[t]he process of juror selection is itself a matter of importance, not simply to the adversaries but to the criminal justice system,’” wrote the justices, quoting an earlier opinion on the matter.

Of course, this new opinion could have consequences beyond Rashad’s case. Lynn also sealed jury selection in the main corruption case last year, in which Don Hill and four others were convicted of bribery and extortion. We’ll see how long it takes for the lawyers in that case to learn of this new Supreme Court decision and file motions seeking to derail those convictions.